Sergeant Et Ux v. Denby

• Decision Date: 11 December 1890
• Citation: 12 S.E. 402,87 Va. 206
• Parties: Sergeant et ux. v. Denby et al.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

87 Va. 206

12 S.E. 402

Sergeant et ux.

v.Denby et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Dec. 11, 1890.

Mechanic's Lien—Separate Lots.

Under Code Va. 1873, c. 115, § 3, which provides that persons "performing labor, or furnishing materials, for the construction, repair, or improvement of any building, or other property, shall have a lien upon such property, " a subcontractor who furnishes materials for the construction of two houses erected under a single contract on lots on opposite sides of a street has a joint lien on both houses and lots for the entire amount of materials furnished for both houses.

Appeal from circuit court of city of Norfolk.

Borland & Wilcox, for appellants.

Hannanson & Heath, for appellees.

Lewis, P. This was a suit in equity in the circuit court of Norfolk city, brought by the appellee Denby, a subcontractor and material-man, to enforce a mechanic's lien. The case, briefly stated, is as follows: In July, 1887, Mrs. Elizabeth F. Sergeant, being the owner of two lots in Norfolk, one situate on the east side, the other on the west side, of Boush street, contracted through her husband and agent, William H. Sergeant, with Dykes & Wickins, general contractors, to construct and to furnish all the materials requisite for the completion of two two-story brick dwellings thereon. The contract was not for so much money for each house, but the agreement was "that the price of said materials, and of doing and putting up of said work, shall be $5,214, payable in installments." The house on the west side of the street was completed early in January, 1888; that on the east side, not until several weeks afterwards, to-wit, on the 27th of that month. Dykes & Wickins contracted with the plaintiff to furnish certain materials for the work, which was done; and within 30 days after the completion of the last-mentioned house, to-wit, on the 23d of February, he filed his claim of lien in the proper clerk's office, and gave notice thereof, as required by the statute. The lien claimed was a joint lien on both houses and lots. The object of the suit was to enforce this lien, and the single question is as to its validity. The defense in the court below was, and the same point is made by Sergeant and wife, the appellants here, that the alleged lien Isvoid, because, they say, a joint lien, in such a case, is not given by the statute; but that, if a lien is claimed at all, it must be a sep arate and distinct lien on each building for the amount of the materials actually delivered for its construction. The lien was claimed under the third section of chapter 115 of the Code of 1873, which provides that "all artizans, builders, mechanics, lumber dealers, and others performing labor, or furnishing materials, for the construction, repair, or improvement, of any building or other property, shall have a lien, as hereinafter provided, upon such property, and so much land therewith, as shall be necessary for the convenient use and enjoyment...